Cdizzle wrote:They do when you want to talk crap on the other teams in the league.

The topic at hand was this year's ISUr resume. No team provided a quality win for us except WSU. If this were a convo about last year's ISUr resume or the 5 years prior then sure no room to talk...

However, this topic is about this year and why we did not get an at large...The other 8 teams absolutely impacted this league only getting 1 in. We were 17-1 in Conference. When was the last Valley team to have that record and NOT get into the big dance? Our league was very bad 3-10 this year.

You challenge a pretty well understood point about this year's version of the MVC with random stats about the past 7 years. Head scratching.

Re: Bubble watch

Cdizzle wrote:They do when you want to talk crap on the other teams in the league.

The topic at hand was this year's ISUr resume. No team provided a quality win for us except WSU. If this were a convo about last year's ISUr resume or the 5 years prior then sure no room to talk...

However, this topic is about this year and why we did not get an at large...The other 8 teams absolutely impacted this league only getting 1 in. We were 17-1 in Conference. When was the last Valley team to have that record and NOT get into the big dance? Our league was very bad 3-10 this year.

You challenge a pretty well understood point about this year's version of the MVC with random stats about the past 7 years. Head scratching.

I challenge nothing about this year's version of the MVC. I challenge an ISU fan complaining about this year's version of the league because over the past 7 years they have been as much a part of the problem.

Cdizzle wrote:I challenge nothing about this year's version of the MVC. I challenge an ISU fan complaining about this year's version of the league because over the past 7 years they have been as much a part of the problem.

Those are mutually exclusive issues. This thread is entitled bubble watch...not bubble watch 2016, or 2015 or 2014....etc.

Why are we arguing this Cdizzle? I did not make you a 10 seed...tweet to @MSUAD if you want to be passively aggressive

Of those 24, we can easily throw out Gonzaga and Wichita St, who are well established. I also think BYU falls into this category. 2 ACC teams played games in the arena that was supposed to host 1st round games this week, so throw out those 2 games for G'boro. UNC played Hawaii on the way to Maui and Florida only played UNF on the road because of their unique stadium situation. Nova/Penn was part of the Big 5, OSU/Navy was contrived for TV.

Once you do all this, here is the list of road games. The list of legitimate road games, taken by a big school against a little school, with no outside influence to do so. These are the games where the teams willingly went on the road. 15 games:Louisville @ Grand CanyonMiami @ North FloridaNorth Carolina @ TulaneSt John's @ TulaneButler @ Indiana StRutgers @ Stony BrookIndiana @ IPFWVanderbilt @ Middle TennesseeTennessee @ East Tennessee StAuburn @ UABGeorgia @ OaklandUSC @ San DiegoColorado @ PortlandWashington @ SeattleOregon St @ Charlotte

What's really **** is looking at preseason predictions. Grand Canyon is ineligible for psotseason...Tulane, Indiana St, IPFW, UAB, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Charlotte were all expected to be awful. Non-entities.

So let's narrow the list further. Road games against mid-majors who were expected to be GOOD. Games where the power team was taking a legitimate risk. 5 games.

Now, Tennessee was expected to be bad, and Rutgers is Rutgers. Take them off the list.

Miami @ North FloridaVanderbilt @ Middle TennesseeGeorgia @ Oakland

Why is this list relevant? This is the list that is relevant to Dan Muller. He has a team with legit at-large hopes. He is looking for an opponent who can provide resume value. Of all the relevant power conference teams in the country, there were exactly 3 instances of a quality power team willingly scheduling a road game at a good mid-major team. And even in 2 of them, UNF and Oakland don't have realistic at-large hopes. If you narrow the list to road games played at mid-majors with realistic at-large hopes, you're down to one:

Vanderbilt @ Middle Tennessee

Now I did make the executive decision to remove Wichita, BYU, and Gonzaga from the list along the way...so you can add in a few more. But this point isn't about them. Wichita, while it can struggle to get teams...they did get Atlantis and both Oklahomas. They could use more, but they can get enough. The point is how to get these games when you're Illinois St.

http://bracketball.blogspot.com/ A national version of the world-famous TAS Bracketology. Spread the word

Why did you include Tulane when they're a part of the 9 conferences you weren't including as mid-major? I know they suck, as you pointed out and ended up tossing anyway, but I'm not sure why you included them to begin with.

www.wheatshockers.com

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

SubGod22 wrote:Why did you include Tulane when they're a part of the 9 conferences you weren't including as mid-major? I know they suck, as you pointed out and ended up tossing anyway, but I'm not sure why you included them to begin with.

Oops, good point. I mean, in spirit they deserve to be included, right?

http://bracketball.blogspot.com/ A national version of the world-famous TAS Bracketology. Spread the word

Of those 24, we can easily throw out Gonzaga and Wichita St, who are well established. I also think BYU falls into this category. 2 ACC teams played games in the arena that was supposed to host 1st round games this week, so throw out those 2 games for G'boro. UNC played Hawaii on the way to Maui and Florida only played UNF on the road because of their unique stadium situation. Nova/Penn was part of the Big 5, OSU/Navy was contrived for TV.

Once you do all this, here is the list of road games. The list of legitimate road games, taken by a big school against a little school, with no outside influence to do so. These are the games where the teams willingly went on the road. 15 games:Louisville @ Grand CanyonMiami @ North FloridaNorth Carolina @ TulaneSt John's @ TulaneButler @ Indiana StRutgers @ Stony BrookIndiana @ IPFWVanderbilt @ Middle TennesseeTennessee @ East Tennessee StAuburn @ UABGeorgia @ OaklandUSC @ San DiegoColorado @ PortlandWashington @ SeattleOregon St @ Charlotte

What's really **** is looking at preseason predictions. Grand Canyon is ineligible for psotseason...Tulane, Indiana St, IPFW, UAB, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Charlotte were all expected to be awful. Non-entities.

So let's narrow the list further. Road games against mid-majors who were expected to be GOOD. Games where the power team was taking a legitimate risk. 5 games.

Now, Tennessee was expected to be bad, and Rutgers is Rutgers. Take them off the list.

Miami @ North FloridaVanderbilt @ Middle TennesseeGeorgia @ Oakland

Why is this list relevant? This is the list that is relevant to Dan Muller. He has a team with legit at-large hopes. He is looking for an opponent who can provide resume value. Of all the relevant power conference teams in the country, there were exactly 3 instances of a quality power team willingly scheduling a road game at a good mid-major team. And even in 2 of them, UNF and Oakland don't have realistic at-large hopes. If you narrow the list to road games played at mid-majors with realistic at-large hopes, you're down to one:

Vanderbilt @ Middle Tennessee

Now I did make the executive decision to remove Wichita, BYU, and Gonzaga from the list along the way...so you can add in a few more. But this point isn't about them. Wichita, while it can struggle to get teams...they did get Atlantis and both Oklahomas. They could use more, but they can get enough. The point is how to get these games when you're Illinois St.